partment of the Interior. The bills reflect credit on their sponsors from our mining States, and on Presidents Roosevelt and Taft, who have long urged the passage of such a measure. But only the thin edge of the wedge has been inserted. While the Bureau of Mines should have, and, we believe, will have, a marked future in ameliorating industrial conditions, it should also afford the Federal Government its proper and beneficent control by overseeing the enforcement of existing laws, and by advising as to additional legislation.

MR. ROOSEVELT'S NOBEL PRIZE ADDRESS

The address on "International Peace," which appeared in full and with editorial comment in The Outlook of last week, was delivered on Thursday by Mr. Roosevelt at Christiania in the National Theater before the Nobel Prize Committee, the members of which are chosen by the Norwegian Storthing for the purpose of awarding the Peace Prize. This, it will be remembered, was bestowed in 1906 upon Mr. Roosevelt in recognition of his services in bringing about peace between Russia and Japan. The King and Queen of Norway were present, as well as the Cabinet officers and the Parliament in a body; and the press despatches note as a particularly interesting fact that among the members of Parliament was the first woman to be elected to that body, Miss Rogstad. We need not here comment further upon the suggestions of the address bearing upon the future possible course of nations towards bringing about peace through the keeping down of armaments by mutual agreement, and through the enforcing of peace, if necessary, by a league of the nations acting in concert. But it is to be added that Mr. Roosevelt prefaced his address by a tribute to the late Björnstjerne Björnson, whose death, he said, leaves a gap in the literature of the whole world because he was "a man who had always stood for the right as he conceived the right to be." A newspaper correspondent who was present remarks on a certain similarity in the style of public speaking and gesture between Björnson himself and Mr. Roosevelt. The address was received with evidences of interest and abundant applause,

and was followed by a short speech from the Vice-President of the Nobel Prize Committee, Mr. John Lund, who not only complimented Mr. Roosevelt on his work for peace and for American advance in national progress, but paid an eloquent tribute to the New World as the place where many ideals, as yet impossible in Europe, had been attained, and where millions of poor but capable men and women from Europe had obtained that happiness and prosperity which the Old World was unable to afford them. At the close of this address the King and Queen stood and joined the audience in a Norwegian "three times three" for the speaker. The day was observed as a holiday in Christiania, and the reception of the people at large to Mr. Roosevelt was not less generous and hearty than that officially bestowed upon him. Among the many visitors who called was the famous Norwegian explorer, Fridtjof Nansen. King Haakon entertained Mr. Roosevelt at the palace, and gave a formal dinner and reception in his honor; while Mr. Roosevelt was also the guest of honor at a municipal dinner at which three hundred and fifty guests were present. On Friday the University of Norway conferred the honorary degree of Doctor of Philosophy on Mr. Roosevelt; this is the first time in its hundred years' history that the University has conferred this degree causa honoris. The week preceding the delivery of the Nobel address was a busy and notable one, even when considered in comparison with the weeks which had immediately preceded it. Belgium, in Holland, and in Denmark the sovereigns of the country displayed a cordiality and a recognition of the interest and unusual character of their guest which were unmistakably something more than the expression of formal and ceremonial respect; and in the chief cities of those countries it is equally true that the common people were not less hearty in their reception of the visitors. At Brussels Mr. Roosevelt made a brief address at the Exposition now in progress there, attended a reception by the American Colony, and was entertained by the new King at Laaken Palace. At Amsterdam Mr. and Mrs. Roosevelt were the guests of honor of Queen Wilhelmina at

luncheon; and Mr. Roosevelt spoke in the Free Church, making reference to his own Dutch descent, and praising the sturdiness of character of the people of Holland. A picturesque incident of the brief visit to Holland was the magnificent display of tulips, not only at the great national tulip show, but along the road from The Hague to Haarlem, where thousands of acres of tulips in bloom in great masses of color were seen as the party passed in a motor.

At Copenhagen one of the newspapers hailed the visitor as "a champion of peace, a spokesman of justice, and a faithful servant of freedom;" while Mr. Roosevelt in turn referred to the Danish emigrants to · America as having only one fault, namely, that there were not enough of them. Here, too, the party was entertained royally in both senses of the word; in the absence of the King, the Crown Prince and Princess were the hosts.

PRINCE TSAI-TAO'S

BULL'S-EYE

The chief of the general staff of the Chinese army has been visiting America. He is Prince Tsai-Tao, brother of the Prince Regent and uncle of the baby Emperor of China. Last week, at the Seventy-first Regiment Armory, New York City, he asked to be permitted to try his hand at rifle practice. His Occidental hosts, confident as to their own sureness of aim, were prepared to be indulgent at the attempts of an Oriental. What was their surprise when, at the very first trial, the Prince put a bullet into the target, and, at the second, one into the bull's-eye! As Admiral Dewey's first cannon shot at Manila may be said to have changed the world's opinion regarding America, so Prince Tsai-Tao's shot in New York may possibly change the world's opinion regarding China. Hitherto we have regarded the four hundred million Chinese as singularly unaggressive. But they are not all unaggressive. Some have been quite the contrary, and in recent times particularly Yuan-Shi-Kai, now exViceroy of the Province of Chili. His idea has been to rehabilitate China as a military nation. To this end he sought the advice of English, German, and Japanese authorities. He reorganized the ridiculous

and disjointed old Chinese army on a modern basis. His notion was ultimately to get an army of a million and a half men scientifically trained, well officered, and thoroughly equipped. No longer were undisciplined provincial officers, with clashing provincia! prejudices, to militate against the success of a centralized force. The new soldiers swear allegiance to the Throne, and not, as before, to any provincial authority. The Viceroy then set to work to create the usual army divisions: first, the men in active service, and, second, those belonging to the first and second reserves. The fighting line consists of infantry, cavalry, artillery, and engineers, with the usual complement of signal corps, ordnance, experts, medical staff, and service corps. The period of service is fixed at ten years-three with the colors, three in the first reserves, and four in the second. The annual army requirements of recruits will be about a hundred and fifty thousand men. But YuanShi-Kai's hardest task was to secure proper officers. The docile Chinaman is easily led if he has a proper leader. How could Yuan make leaders out of Chinese when for centuries military service has been regarded as the lowest in the social scale? He recommended, and the Throne ordered, that army officers should be assimilated to the class of Mandarins, and that every prince, noble, and official of the Empire should send at least one son to the newly established Military School for Nobles at Peking. The training of officers at that school, now that Prince Tsai-Tao has visited West Point, will, he says, follow American methods. This, of course, must also involve the adoption of similar methods for training the soldiers to be commanded by these officers. The supposedly sluggish Chinese may be found, under proper training, to be serious fighters.

same class with the late Dr. Munger, he sailed for Syria in 1855 under commission from the American Board for Foreign Missions. Thenceforth his life was devoted to the development of the work which was then beginning to show fruit from the toil of its beginners since 1820. The conspicuous and lasting memorial of his life is the Syrian Protestant College in Beirut, opened in 1865, which he cooperated in founding, now manned by a faculty of twenty-eight, with nearly five. hundred students. In ten months after his arrival he had mastered the harsh gutturals and strange idoms of the Arabic sufficiently to preach in that difficult tongue. A tire

less worker to the last, he wrote at sixtynine: How can a missionary resign at seventy? We ought to work right on up to the gates of glory." He was a missionary of civilization as well as of religion. As such no man was more honored and esteemed in American churches. He died in harness, as he desired. His recently published autobiography, "Fifty-three Years in Syria," about which something is said on another page, is the principal relic of his industrious pen.

He

Like so many others, I have mourned the loss of Richard Watson Gilder as one of the truest, stanchest, and most delightful of friends, and one of the best of citizens. combined to a singular degree sweetness and courage, idealism and wholesome common sense. It may truthfully be said that he was an ideal citizen for such a democracy as ours. He was a man of letters; he was a lover of his kind, who worked in a practical fashion for the betterment of social and economic conditions; and he took keen and effective interest in our public life. No worthier American citizen has lived during our time.

The form that the proposed memorial is to take the creation of a fund for the promotion of good citizenship-would, I believe, have been peculiarly acceptable to him. It seems to me the best of all possible ways in which to perpetuate the memory of the man

KING EDWARD OF
ENGLAND

America always feels her kinship to England most strongly in the presence of national sorrow. It is an exact, plain statement of fact that Queen Victoria's death stirred hearts here almost as if we also had been of her own people. Now, at the end of her son's reign, Americans will express sincerely a brotherly sympathy in a great nation's grief.

That

That Edward was both respected and loved is beyond dispute. Nine years ago, when his accession was proclaimed with quaint mediaval ceremony, we said in these pages that he entered into the inheritance of a priceless possession of loyalty and affection, an inheritance that he would not forfeit if he had the good sense with which he was accredited. faculty of good sense has proved his noteworthy quality. No constitutional monarch of our times, not even Victoria, has shown more tact and reserve. A blundering king in England might have so disturbed the political waters as to have made republicanism popular. But with all the spread of Socialism, with all the advance of labor radicalism, with all the attacks on the House of Lords, there have been few threats against the throne; loyalty to the tradition of a restrained monarchy is unshaken to-day. Nor was Edward VII a do-nothing king. From the first he recognized the fact that his chief sphere of action lay in personal influence upon the international relations of his country. Through his many family

connections in the royal circles of Europe and those of his Queen, who has been so beloved at home and abroad, the King has exerted a quiet but powerful effectiveness for peace and amity. Writing in The Outlook two years ago of King Edward's "passion for diplomacy," Mr. Isaac N. Ford, an experienced American newspaper correspondent, declared that the King's success in that direction had been due in large measure to his honesty and sincerity, and that in this field, as in his home affairs, he had serviceable resources of tact, simplicity, and bonhomie, and to these qualities joined quickness of decision and flexibility of mind. Just how much he accomplished may never be known: but one example often given of the King's diplomatic power is the important entente between France and England, largely due, it is believed, to the fact that the King was trusted personally by a sensitive nation. There is no doubt that he was aided in all things by his mingling of dignity and cordiality. This union of qualities, notable while he was still Prince of Wales, became more marked after his accession, and the fear that he might become an indolent or excessively pleasure-loving sovereign soon gave way to appreciation of his tact and distinction of manner. Twice there has been overwhelming evidence of the affection in which he was held by the people of Great Britain: once, thirty-eight years ago, when, as Prince of Wales, his life was threatened by typhoid and his recovery was celebrated with thanksgiving, clearly honest and heartfelt, throughout his dominions; again when, in 1902, after his accession, the coronation was postponed because he was a second time in danger, from which he only recovered after a severe operation, and his people throughout the Empire were for many weeks tense with anxiety and fear.

The life of a constitutional king in our day is not, as a rule, marked by sensational incident. He leads no armies, directs no parties, formulates no political creeds. As one reviews Edward's life of sixty-nine years, the events that are most prominent, in addition to the two outpourings of popular affection just referred to, are, his education at the three universities of Edinburgh, Oxford, and CambridgeCharles Kingsley was for a time his tutor;

his visit to the United States in 1860, which made a long-remembered social excitement, quaintly indicated in the woodcuts of the old-time illustrated weeklies; his tour of the Orient in 1862; his marriage in 1863 to Princess Alexandra of Denmark, who became in an instant close to the affections of the English people; the birth of his six children, the eldest of whom, Prince Albert Victor, died at the age of twenty-eight, while the second, the present Prince of Wales, succeeds Edward VII as George V; his trip in 1875 through India, where he was received with lavish splendor and expressions of loyalty; and his constant patronage, before and after his accession, of all manner of educational, art, and philanthropic institutions

he never seemed to tire in the arduous duty of "opening" buildings, dedicating monuments, and giving royal approval to that which was worthy.

It was only on Thursday morning of last week that serious alarm was felt about the King's illness; on Friday near midnight he died. For some months it had been known that his health was far from good; he returned from Biarritz, where his physicians had sent him, with a bad case of bronchitis which quickly developed into pneumonia of a most serious type, and the disease ran its fatal course with extraordinary rapidity.

It has been said that Edward VII always in public functions said and did the right thing; that his amiability and readiness were such that he might be termed Edward the Tactful if it were not for his claim to a higher designation-Edward the Peaceful.

President Taft in his message of sympathy speaks of "those high qualities which made the life of the late King so potent an influence toward peace and justice among nations." Beside this may be placed the characterization of an English newspaper of radical views: "He will live in the memory of his subjects as one who was personally loved and admired, because he reflected with strange completeness the ideals of the ordinary British citizen. In all his reign he never struck a false note in appeal, direct or indirect, to the body of the nation. Seriousness of purpose and delicate appreciation of the nature of his high constitutional office were equally remarkable in him. He leaned to no party,

uttered no indiscretions, nor was his purely personal influence over the multitude confined to his own country. His genial humanity won hearts wherever it was publicly seen."

THE POWER OF THE

PRESIDENT

To correct some misapprehension on the part of one or two correspondents and one or two of our contemporaries, we here restate the position of The Outlook concerning the powers of the President.

The founders of the Constitution assumed that the powers of the Federal Government should be divided, as they are in all free governments, into three departments-a Legislative, an Executive, and a Judicial Department. And the Constitution provided that the legislative powers should be vested in a Congress, the executive powers in a President, and the judicial powers in a Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress should from time to time establish.

There is some reason for maintaining that the legislative powers of Congress are limited to those expressly and in terms conferred upon it, because the Constitution provides that "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress,' " and this clause is followed by a detailed list of things which Congress may do. But no such reasoning can apply to either the Executive or the Judiciary, for in the case of both the language is general in its terms:

Art. II, § 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.

Art. III, § 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court of the United States, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

What judicial power? The judicial power ordinarily recognized as belonging to the courts in a constitutional government. What executive power? The executive power ordinarily recognized as belonging to the executive department in a constitutional government.

It was not necessary to declare that the courts should have power to issue writs of injunction and mandamus, or to punish for contempt, or to impanel jurors, or to compel the attendance of witnesses.

These pow

ers belong to the judiciary in all civilized countries. So it was not necessary to declare that the Executive might protect the property of the people from private spoliation; that is a power which is inherent in the Executive; without that power it would not be an Executive. One correspondent

soberly assures us that if our construction of the Constitution is correct, the President could give away the land of the people, because the Constitution does not in express terms forbid him from so doing. That is not a power which in any free government belongs to the Executive. The power to protect the property of the people does in all free governments belong to him.

In our interpretation of the powers conferred by the Constitution on the President there is nothing radical or novel. It is sustained by the best interpreters of the Constitution, both lay and legal. For example, Mr. James Bryce in "The American Commonwealth :"

He [the President] is George III shorn of a part of his prerogative by the intervention of the Senate in treaties and appointments, of another part by the restriction of his action to Federal affairs, while his dignity as well as his influence are diminished by his holding office for four years instead of for life. Professor Frederic Jesup Stimson in "The American Constitution :"

He [the President] generally has the powers of a constitutional British king, except in so far as those powers are taken from him in other parts of the Constitution and entrusted to other bodies.

The historians of the Constitutional Convention use the same language. Thus John Fiske in his "Critical Period of American History :"

The President in our system, irremovable by the national legislature, does not answer to the modern prime minister, but to the old-fashioned king, with powers for mischief curtailed by election for short terms.

Thus the historian, the jurist, and the political philosopher agree in their interpretation of the Constitutional powers of the President, and even in the analogy which they use to illustrate that interpretation. He has the executive powers of a constitutional king, except as they are limited by the express terms or the necessary implications of the Constitution itself. We are to look in history to find what his powers are: we are to look in the Constitution to find what powers are denied him.